Every nascent technology and every tech start-up faces the same marketing challenge of “crossing the chasm” into mainstream adoption. Geoffrey Mooreframed this very well in his 1991 classic, “Crossing the Chasm”:

Word of mouth can play a huge role in motivating certain segments to sip the Kool-Aid and make the leap.

With CES 2018—the world's largest gadget tradeshow—happening in Vegas this week, I can't help but wonder if mainstream consumers don’t relate to the early adopters of a new technology? What if they think it’s used by people who aren’t part of “their tribe”? Will it prevent them even considering the new tech? There are countless technology categories that have faced this challenge, for example:

I hypothesized that the virtual assistant (VA) category—and specific brands within it—faces this challenge. Yes, many people have tried and used Siri, but few mainstream consumers are truly using virtual assistants for anything beyond basic hands-free web-queries. To further complicate things, an increasing number of “smart home” products that connect to intelligent wireless speakers in the home (e.g., Amazon Alexa, Google Home, Apple’s forthcoming HomePod) are proving divisive. Some people love the experience or the idea of commanding a smart device while others categorically reject the concept.

My team and I had the chance to test out a few hypothesis through our Consumer Pulse program and —voila!—we’ve got some tasty (and useful) morsels to share with you about how social identity is influencing consumer adoption in the virtual assistant space using our proprietary AffinIDSM solution.

Here’s what we found:

Social identity matters in the virtual assistant space. We studied US consumers (18+)—covering usage, adoption, and perceptions of the virtual assistant category and a deep-dive on four major brands within it: Apple’s Siri, Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, and Cortana by Microsoft. We covered rational perceptions of the category, emotional reactions to experiences using virtual assistants, and perceptions of the “typical” user of Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant, and Cortana.

We then ran fancy math™ on our data to create a model to predict the likelihood of a virtual assistant “category rejecter” (i.e., someone who has never tried a VA before) to try any one of those assistants in the future. Our analysis indicates that how much a current VA category rejecter relates to their image of the type of person who uses a virtual assistant is the number one predictor of whether they are likely to try the technology in the future:

Unfortunately for the industry, category rejectersdo not find the typical VA user very relatable.

As the chart indicates, relatability (biggest predictor of likelihood to try as shown previously) scores the lowest of the three components of AffinID: relatability, clarity, and desirability. You may ask yourself: “are scores of 12 to 14 ‘good’ or ‘bad’? They’re bad: trust me. We’ve now run AffinID on hundreds of brands across dozens of industries, so we have a formidable normative database against which to compare brands. The VA category does not fare well on “relatability,” and it matters.

Some brands’ VA ads, while amusing, are not very relatable to “normal” mainstream consumers. For example as my colleague Erica Carranza points out in her recent blog, Siri’s ad featuring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson doing impossibly awesome things in one day (including taking a selfie from outer-space) with the help of Siri isn’t exactly a “normal” person’s day. A-grade for amusement on this one, but it is playing into an existing perception problem.

Stereotypes about users’ age and income are currently keeping “rejecters” away from the virtual assistant category.

The age gap between rejecters and “typical” virtual assistant users is a social identity construct keeping rejecters out of the category. Current rejecters, not surprisingly, skew older while current heavy VA users, also not surprisingly, skew young.

We uncovered this disconnect with a big predictive model using “match analysis” on a variety of demographic, personality, and interest attributes. For every attribute, we examined whether there was a “match” or a “disconnect” between how a rejecter described themselves vs. how they perceived the typical user of a virtual assistant brand.

The two specific perceptions that had the greatest ability to predict a rejecter’s likelihood to consider using a brand in the future was an age-range match and an income-range match. For example, if I’m over 35 years old (hypothetically!), and I perceive the “typical” user to be under 35 years old and higher-income than me…so what? Well, it does matter. For new technologies to achieve mainstream adoption, they must debunk the widespread perceptions that the early adopter is “young” and highly affluent, and that their product can be used by everyone (think: Facebook). SNL pokes fun at this generational discrepancy.

But in all seriousness, if a virtual assistant brand wants to achieve more mainstream adoption among older demographics, the brand gurus and creative teams working on campaigns need to tackle this head on.

And they must try to do this—ideally—without alienating the original early adopter group that made them their first million (think: Facebook, again…how many Gen Zers do you know who actually use it actively?). I—prototypical 45-year-old suburban dad—can’t imagine using Snapchat, for instance. If Snapchat wanted to get me and my tribe to buy in as avid users*, it needs to convince me that Snapchat isn’t just for teens and early twenty-somethings. Or it needs to launch a different brand/product targeted specifically at my tribe, and market it appropriately.

It’s worth noting there are other social identity constructs that help predict whether a non-user of a virtual assistant is likely to try a product in the future. For instance, the few VA category rejecters who perceive the typical (young, affluent) user as being as “responsible/reliable” as themselves are more open to trying a VA in future than those who do not perceive VA users this way. So, we’re seeing this stereotype that virtual assistant products are for young, affluent professionals living in a major coastal city with no kids to contend with yet, and this is turning some consumer segments off from trying out the category in earnest.

Stay tuned to this channel for more on our study of the virtual assistant category. I’ll be covering some key insights we got by applying our emotional impact analysis—EMPACT℠to the same issue of what virtual assistant brands should be doing to achieve further adoption and more mainstream usage of their products.

*I am more than 95% confident that the Snapchat brand gurus do not want me as an avid user…and my ‘tween daughter would definitely die of embarrassment if I ever joined that particular platform and tried to communicate with her that way.

Overbooking, heightened security procedures, skyrocketing baggage fees, and shrinking legroom have made domestic air travel a very stressful experience. With emotions running high on the tarmac, in the air, and on Twitter, what’s an airline to do?

Emotions matter... and we've proved it.

Emotional analytics are a critical tool to help create a truly consumer-centric brand. Emotions are a key driver in consumer brand adoption/loyalty and will undoubtedly play a major role in how United performs going forward. In our self-funded study of the impact of emotions across 90 brands in 5 industries, CMB found that a brand’s overall emotional impact score can heavily influence future likelihood to purchase along with other key KPIs (advocacy, engagement, etc.).

We identified which specific emotions drive business outcomes in the airline industry, the top being “secure”, “efficient”, and “happy”. Of the negative emotions we tested, “anxious” proved to be the most damaging to a company:

We also found that of the five major airline brands tested, including United, UAL had the lowest Net Positive Emotion Score (NPES). NPES is the balance of positive emotions activated through experience with a company subtracted by the extent of negative emotions activated. It also accounts for overall emotional “activation” (high vs. low), and the general sentiment of that activation (positive or negative).

Both United and American both share a special place at the bottom of the “Negative Emotion” spectrum (17 and 18, respectively), out-activating negativity by ~30% over the airline industry average of 13.

A Path Forward

Now let’s have a look-see at what specific emotions have the biggest impact on likelihood to consider flying United, specifically, and how that compares to the overall industry average of emotional drivers:

The “Anxious” vs. “Relaxed” emotional spectrum is the biggest emotional driver of future United purchase intent. Lowering feelings of “Anxiety,” in particular, is much more important for United’s brand than it is for the industry average.

Unfortunately for United, their brand already generated 33% more “anxiety” than the industry average:

I can only imagine the anxiety Dr. Dao felt when he was removed from the seat he paid for to make room for a UAL employee. And I can also imagine the emotional connection felt by the millions of others who watched the video of him being dragged off the plane by airport security because they could relate to it in some way from their own travel experiences or common worries people have about flying:

“Will they arbitrarily change my flight times in a way that messes up the rest of my travel plans?”

“Will they cancel my flight altogether and put me on another (later) flight if it is under-booked?” (something that happens a lot on connector flights to smaller airports).

“Will I be forced to vacate my seat if they are over-booked?”

“Will there be delays that cause me to miss my connection, an important meeting, etc.?”

“Will I be sitting next to a 6’5” linebacker in a cramped coach class seat?”

No doubt this incident would have been a PR disaster for any airline, but the blowback was likely even more intense because it happened on a UAL flight—a brand that already activates more negative sentiments than most competing brands.

The bad news:

United Airlines was already in the hole before this incident, and now that hole is vastly deeper. Bad press and bad experiences linger longer in peoples’ memories than positive press or positive experiences, so it’s likely the image of Dao’s forced removal is here to stay (at least for a while).

Similarly, angry customers are much more likely to tell others about their bad experiences (typically with a bigger megaphone) than those with positive ones. Righteous indignation goes viral more readily than positivity. Furthermore, bad word-of-mouth has larger negative impact on a brand than good word-of-mouth has positive impact (by an order of magnitude). And some of the most prolific public haters will likely never be swayed otherwise, no matter what UAL does from this point forward.

The good news:

In our analysis, we found that—across all industries tested—emotional reactions to the most recent experience have a much bigger impact on likelihood to buy in the future than the worst experience a customer has ever had with a brand (or the best). In other words, even brands that mess up big time can recover if they begin to deliver customer experiences and marketing communications strategies that foster the right emotions. With our “EMPACT” approach, we can identify very specific customer experiences, creative executions, and messaging that will deactivate the most damaging emotions like “anxiety” and activate key positive emotions like “relaxed.”

May the skies be friendlier.

If United wants to be a truly consumer-centric brand, they need to consider emotion measurements like NPES as a valid metric for tracking and analytics. United will need to profoundly understand which emotions matter, and how to proactively influence these emotions through specific customer experiences, promotional campaigns, and influencing what is (and isn’t) said about the brand on social media.

Emotional metrics deserve the same level of visibility and focus that traditional industry metrics like Revenue Per Available Seat Mile (RASM) and classic NPS receive. Until this happens, UAL may struggle to focus their customer experience strategies and creative campaigns in a way that helps them recover from this low point.

Chris Neal leads CMB’s Technology & Telecommunications practice. He gets emotional very easily. He is also a frequent flyer on United Airlines. While extremely angered and disgusted by the viral video of the UAL incident, he is curious to experience how UAL actually changes in future and will fly this airline again to find out.

Two and a half years ago, I fell in love with Pure Barre–a full-body workout inspired by ballet, yoga and Pilates. There are a bunch of barre studios with similar workouts to choose from, but I started with Pure Barre and am now fiercely loyal.

This loyalty didn’t develop overnight; the morning after my first class I could barely make it out of bed. I couldn’t understand why barre had such a big following. It felt like self-inflicted torture, and I definitely felt this guy’s pain.

I was never one to enjoy working out, so what’s so special about the Pure Barre brand that’s kept me addicted for years and kept me from heading to another barre brand? The physical pain is the same (intense) and the class prices are a little higher than other similar workouts. After giving it some thought, I realized that what I love so much about Pure Barre is how being part of the Pure Barre community makes me feel.

Pure Barre makes me feel confident, motivated, and strong. It evokes such positive emotions from me that I’ve found myself altering my behavior in order to incorporate Pure Barre into my life. For example, when I plan a vacation, I specifically look for hotels that are near Pure Barre studios, I get up extra early on holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas so I can squeeze in a class, and I schedule my weekend social life around my classes. Not only that, while I'm normally a fairly frugal shopper, I’ll spend $17 on the special Pure Barre sticky socks used for class without batting an eye (I own 6 pairs!!!).

I’m also proud to be part of the Pure Barre community. We’re a network of loyal followers bound by our love of the Pure Barre experience who constantly support and encourage each other. I’ve witnessed deep friendships begin at Pure Barre studios–maybe enduring the pain together is a strong bonding force? Either way, there’s a camaraderie among Pure Barre members unlike anything I’ve experienced at other gyms/studios.

Pure Barre makes its members feel good and valued by doing little things, like celebrating attendance milestones. For example, you’ll get special recognition at your 100th, 250th, 500th, 750th, etc. class. You also get a free class on your birthday. Or, as Pure Barre calls it, your “barrety”. Touchpoints like these makes me and my fellow Pure Barre addicts feel celebrated and drive attendance.

Pure Barre instructors also play a huge part in fostering positive emotions from the clients. Filled with upbeat energy and techniques for encouragement, they have a friendly way of ensuring that everyone works their hardest (for example, they won't call out the final 10 counts of the exercise until everyone has the right form). Instructors also learn the names of regular attendees and will call out your name if you are doing something particularly well during class. This “in the moment” recognition motivates me to push myself beyond my limits and get the most out of every class.

I love talking about Pure Barre and am a huge promoter of the brand. I want others to have the same positive experience with Pure Barre, and so I regularly encourage friends to take classes with me.

Pure Barre is a great example of how successful a brand can be when it’s tuned into how its product/service makes their customers feel. When brands know what emotions they (and should) evoke from their customers, brands can more effectively create techniques to drive consideration and loyalty. Pure Barre motivates, encourages, and supports its customers. The end result? A loyal following of barre fanatics willing to pay a premium to plié.

Stores have been stocked with heart-shaped candies and cards since December, but now that it’s actually February, I think it’s okay to think about Valentine’s Day. And because love is in the air (as well as on the shelves) it’s a perfect time to think about how brands can tap into this fundamental human experience to drive consideration, usage and loyalty.

We already know that understanding and influencing consumers’ emotions is crucial for building a loyal customer base, but what do we really know about love that could help us achieve those lofty outcomes? Based on a quick Google search (and a few life experiences), here’s what I’ve learned so far:

Love is an emotion.

Love is an action.

Love is a biological motivation system.

Love is an attitude.

Love is a drive.

Love is a choice.

Love is patient.

Love is blind.

Love is a battlefield.

Love, as it turns out, is rather complex. So what does that mean for marketers trying to get people to fall in love with their brands? Where do you start?

When studying emotion, traditionally researchers take a brand-centric approach and focus on how consumers feel about the brand. While there’s valuable insight there, it’s often more valuable to take a consumer-centric approach, one that asks consumers how the brand makes them feel. Consumers develop feelings about a brand because of how it makes them feel… understanding those feelings evoked by the brand is critical insight into how consumers develop strong, positive sentiments towards the brand.

For marketers trying to earn consumers’ love this Valentine’s Day (and the other 364 days of the year), it’s critical to explore which emotions your brand should evoke to make them love your brand. Do they want to feel respected? Proud? Efficient? Secure? Surprised? Just like with the object of your romantic affections, you’ll be far more successful with your customers if you ask them how they want to feel and create experiences and messaging that inspire those emotions. [Tweet this!]

Heather Magaw is VP of Client Services at CMB. The brands she loves most this Valentine’s season are Apple, Amazon, Red Sox, IBM Watson, and CMB (of course!).

How does your brand make consumers feel? It’s a tough but important question and the answer will often vary between customers and prospects or between segments within your customer base. Understanding and influencing consumers’ emotions is crucial for building a loyal customer base; and scientific research, market research, and conventional wisdom all suggest that to attract and engage consumers, emotions are a key piece of the puzzle.

CMB designed EMPACTSM, a proprietary quantitative approach to understanding how a brand, product, touchpoint, or experience should make a consumer feel in order to drive their behaviors. Measuring valence (how bad or good) and activation (low to high energy) across basic emotions (e.g., happy, sad, etc.), social and self-conscious emotions (e.g., pride, embarrassment, nostalgia, etc.) and other relevant feelings and mental states (e.g., social connection, cognitive ease, etc.), EMPACThas proved to be a practical, comprehensive, and robust tool. The key insights around emotions emerge which can then drive communication to elicit the desired emotions and drive consumer behavior. But while EMPACT has been used extensively as a quantitative tool, it is also an important component when conducting qualitative research.

In order to achieve the most bang for the buck with qualitative research, every researcher knows that having the right people in the room (or in front of the video-enabled IDI) is a critical first step. You screen for demographics and behaviors and sometimes attitudes, but have you considered emotions? Ensuring that you recruit respondents who feel a specific way when considering your brand or product is critical to being able to glean the most insight from qualitative work. (Tweet this!) Applying an emotional qualifier to respondents allows us to ensure that we are talking to respondents who are in the best position to provide the specific types of insights we’re looking for.

For example, CMB has a client who learned from a segmentation study which incorporated EMPACTthat their brand over-indexed for eliciting certain emotions that tended to drive consumers away from brands within their industry. The firm had a desire to craft targeted communications to mitigate these negative emotions among this specific strategic consumer segment. As a first step in testing their marketing message and imagery, focus groups were conducted.

In addition to using the segmentation algorithm to ensure we had the correct consumer segment in the room, we also included EMPACTscreening to be sure the respondents selected felt the emotions that we wanted to address with new messaging. In this way, we were able to elicit insights directly related to how well the new messaging worked in mitigating the negative emotions. Of course we tested the messaging among broader groups as well, but being able to identify and isolate respondents whose emotions we most wish to improve ensured development of great advertising that will move the emotion needle and motivate consumers to try and to love the brand.

Want to learn more about EMPACT? View our webinar by clicking the link below:

Lori Vellucci is an Account Director at CMB. She spends her free time purchasing ill-fated penny stocks and learning about mobile payment solutions from her Gen Z daughters.